Difference between revisions of "Fsf.org/resources/webmail-systems"
m |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* The "Recommended" section | * The "Recommended" section | ||
− | ** Add Mail2Tor http://mail2tor2zyjdctd.onion -- uses SquirrelMail | + | ** Add a new sub section, "Tor network, used for extra anonymity": |
− | ** Add TorBox - http://torbox3uiot6wchz.onion/ | + | *** Add Mail2Tor http://mail2tor2zyjdctd.onion -- uses SquirrelMail |
+ | *** Add TorBox - http://torbox3uiot6wchz.onion/ | ||
** Remove SIGAINT -- Both the Tor and regular website have been taken offline. | ** Remove SIGAINT -- Both the Tor and regular website have been taken offline. | ||
** To this section: "Some services will let you sign up and sign in without non-free JavaScript, and use IMAP/POP3 from a desktop program, but have broken webmail:" | ** To this section: "Some services will let you sign up and sign in without non-free JavaScript, and use IMAP/POP3 from a desktop program, but have broken webmail:" |
Revision as of 02:22, 8 March 2018
Issue for https://www.fsf.org/resources/webmail-systems
- The "Recommended" section
- Add a new sub section, "Tor network, used for extra anonymity":
- Add Mail2Tor http://mail2tor2zyjdctd.onion -- uses SquirrelMail
- Add TorBox - http://torbox3uiot6wchz.onion/
- Remove SIGAINT -- Both the Tor and regular website have been taken offline.
- To this section: "Some services will let you sign up and sign in without non-free JavaScript, and use IMAP/POP3 from a desktop program, but have broken webmail:"
- Mailnesia - https://mailnesia.com/
- Add a new sub section, "Tor network, used for extra anonymity":
- The "Not Recommended" section. Add
- OpenMailBox -- used to be listed in the "Recommended" section before but then got removed without any explanation. I've heard that registration requires nonfree JS.
- Microsoft Exchange
- Microsoft Hotmail
- Microsoft Live
- Microsoft MSN
- Microsoft Outlook.com
- Yahoo! Mail
- Yandex Mail
Ian: I think hosting your own mail should also be mentioned on that list. I recently transitioned to doing that, and I recommend it. For someone else wanting to do it, I would recommend mailinabox. The other one people talk about is http://mailcow.email/. I did my own setup with exim and dovecot, and I forward port 25 from a remote server to my home machine to get around the standard isp residential service port 25 block.
Bitmessage
> Bitmessage also known as Bitmessage Mail Gateway (BMG), is a service > that allows you to use your E-Mail client (or the webmail) for sending > and receiving Bitmessages over clearnet, Tor, and I2P.[3] This allows > sending and receiving of email anonymously, to email addresses inside > and outside these networks. Bitmessage.ch offers webmail, pop3, IMAP and > SMTP access to email clients. - > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitmessage.ch#Bitmessage.ch Bitmessage is > a decentralized, encrypted, peer-to-peer, trustless communications > protocol that can be used by one person to send encrypted messages to > another person, or to multiple subscribers. > > > > > -- > RMS: Bitmessage is no good because it won't scale, according to the > expert I consulted. > DBH: What do you mean with scale? > RMS: It won't work if lots of people use it. > -- > On Mon, November 9, 2015 1:50 pm, David Hedlund wrote: > DBH: Can Bitmessage.ch be used by tens of thousands of more users? > Bitmessage.ch: Yes. Bitmessage.ch internally operates as a regular > e-mail system, so it > can support many users. > There was a time where nearly 20'000 users had registered accounts here, > but sadly, interest in bitmessage has declined ever since. > The bitmessage network itself is not affected by the number of users, but > the number of messages. Scaling proposals have been made, but nothing has > been implemented since. > To support a lot more users, the bitmessage.ch service would need to be > scattered across more servers. At that point, money is a problem again, as > this is run on my personal account. Adding more servers also adds more > cost. -- > DBH: It doesn't really matter if your expert says that bitmessage.ch won't > scale -- they have been running for years. > RMS: What do you propose that I do or say about bitmessage? > DBH: Can you please ask the FSF to put Bitmessage under the section "Under > Review" at https://www.fsf.org/resources/webmail-systems ? > RMS: I asked the person who evaluates them. > DBH: Thanks, that was kind of you.